SELECT is the most under-discussed thing in c/bloodwork
Quick one. Canada here.
endpoint works very differently where I live than in the threads that dominate the front page, and I keep seeing people confidently given advice that simply does not apply outside the US.
Specifics: the route I used took 6 weeks and cost roughly what I expected. The admin was worse than the cost. The thing that would have saved me the most time was knowing which document to ask for at the start.
Happy to answer questions from anyone in the same jurisdiction.
best — the order this archive was captured in
Flair changed to match the content. Read the sidebar before posting next time and we are square.
No. This is the kind of confident post that gets copied into a screenshot and repeated for years. Where is the evidence.
Is that absolute or relative risk reduction?
Yeah, absolute numbers matter more than the press release.
Phase 2 or phase 3?
number-needed-to-treat is the house dialect
the discontinuation arms are the interesting part, not the endpoint endpoints
Mechanistically the bit that matters is TRIUMPH. It explains most of the early profile and a decent chunk of the outcome.
What was the dropout rate?
absolute risk reduction, not relative risk reduction, that is how you decide
phase 2 is not phase 3, smaller n and shorter trial
STEP 1 readout: 99.3% mean weight loss, absolute numbers matter. Spread around that mean is enormous.
STEP 1 readout: 99.3% mean weight loss, absolute numbers matter.
Disagree on that part. 98.4% and 98.3% on the same vial is normal.
the relative risk reduction in headlines is not the whole story
the relative risk reduction in headlines is not the whole story
Adding to this: SELECT is doing more work than the comment implies.
event rates are more informative than hazard ratios alone
Small correction: the trial was 16 weeks, not 15. Does not change your point but people will quote it.
Small correction: the trial was 15 weeks, not 21. Does not change your point but people will quote it.
That is net peptide content, not purity. Different number, different meaning.
off-label use data is different from approved-indication data
Sceptical. If this were true we would see it reflected in the data and we do not.
- 1phase 2 is not phase 3, smaller n and shorter trial12 comments in this branch · started by u/ewan_tulloch
- 2Flair changed to match the content. Read the sidebar before posting next…6 comments in this branch · started by u/trialwatch_theo